Saturday, November 05, 2011

Hubbert's Third Prophecy

[A timely guest post from Gary. tl;dn: Hubbert was right. Again.]

In light of recent events such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street I thought it would be pertinent to review Hubbert's Third Prophecy about the cultural crisis he expected. He wrote about it in the attached article entitled "Exponential Growth as a Transient Phenomenon in Human History". In case you are not familiar with Hubbert's first two prophecies, he predicted both the US and world oil peak very accurately.

In 1956 Hubbert predicted the US oil peak would be sometime between 1969 and 1971. For this he was ridiculed and laughed off the face of the earth (almost). Turned out the US oil peak was in 1970. This is something the drill-baby-drill, it's all the environmentalists' fault, ditto heads don't know anything about.

Next in 1974 Hubbert predicted the world oil peak to happen about 1998. However he DID say that if OPEC were to restrict the supply, then the peak would be delayed by 10-15 years which would put it at 2008-2013, or exactly right. Here is what Hubbert's prediction (to scale by MBPD) looks like overlayed onto a reasonably close estimate of the actual global oil peak which started in 2005 and has continued as a plateau up to now.

OK, now is anyone willing to make a bet that Hubbert's THIRD prophecy is wrong? Didn't think so. Here it is:

Hubbert said, "The third curve (on the left) is simply the mathematical curve for exponential growth. No physical quantity can follow this curve for more than a brief period of time. However, a sum of money, being of a nonphysical nature and growing according to the rules of compound interest at a fixed interest rate, can follow that curve indefinitely...Our principle constraints are cultural...we have evolved a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of non-growth...it behooves us...to begin a serious examination of the...cultural adjustments necessary...before unmanageable crises arise..."

Ok, anyone see any cultural crisis happening? Yeah, what about a worldwide uprising of the 99% against the 1%? What does this have to do with Hubbert's Third Prophecy? EVERYTHING!
Here is a graph of total US debt in all sectors up to end of 2009:

Here is same curve overlayed with same time scale on global oil peak:

Looks kinda like Hubbert's graph above doesn't it? That's because it is. Debt can continue to increase indefinitely, while oil can't. And since our entire money system is based on debt with interest attached there is no way to escape it. All money is debt because we have allowed banks and the fed to create all our money through interest-bearing loans by using the fractional reserve system. The details are unimportant, the main point is that our money supply is created by interest-bearing loans of banks and the fed. Therefore, the economy must always grow in order to pay back the interest. When the economy can't grow anymore...collapse.

Here is what has happened to US debt over the last several years:

2008 US Debt:GDP ratio = 350%

2009 4Q US Debt:GDP ratio = 425%

2011: US Debt:GDP ratio = 475%?

Debt has continued to grow because we don't have a real economy anymore, we have a fictitious funny-money phantom economy of mostly financial speculation. Here is what happened in 2008:

As we all know, we had a stock market crash, a housing crash, an oil price spike and crash, and an employment crash. Because we don't have a real economy any more we have papered over these problems by creating more debt. The taxpayers bailed out the criminal fraudsters on Wall St., taking on more government debt, and the fed bailed out many bankrupt banks internationally ($12 Trillion), indenturing the taxpayers for future debt.

Since debt represents ultimately a claim on real assets, debt cannot continue forever if growth of the real resource based economy has stopped. This is Hubbert's Third Prophecy: When economic growth cannot continue due to the lack of affordable oil, then we will have a cultural crisis. Well here we are folks. The solution of the powers that be? Create more funny money through the fed's "quantitative easing program". The solution of the Keynesian economists? Take on more government debt through interest bearing loans by selling Treasury bonds to the fed, China, and other parties (stimulus). The solution of the right-wing "deficit hawks"? Cut government (social) spending to the bone to "cut the deficit" which they created through monstrous military spending, and tax cuts to themselves. Guess what. None of these are going to work. The solution is structural in the monetary system itself. When all money is debt, there is always interest to pay and growth is required.

Hubbert didn't mention one other notable feature of a debt-money system. It systematically pumps wealth from the bottom 80% of the population in wealth to the top 20%. The bottom 80% pay interest while the top 20% collects it, and of course most of the interest is collected by the top 10%. When all money is debt, that's a lot of money going to the top. The Occupy Wall Street people aren't stupid. They know the game is rigged.

A SOLUTION

A solution is some form of Public Credit Money. That means that money is issued without interest:

1. 100% reserve requirements (abolish bank money)

2. Abolish Federal Reserve notes (end private central banking)

3. Issue Treasury Notes INTEREST-FREE (Greenbacks)

4. Issue state or local currency (warrants, bills of credit, zero interest bonds)

5. Social Credit (CH Douglas)

6. Kucinich NEED Act

Each of these topics could have a separate article, but I will summarize briefly.

1. The small reserve requirement of ~5% means that the banking system can create 1/.05 = 20X the money from deposits on hand. Most people think banks loan out money that people save and deposit, but that isn't how it works. With 100% reserve banks can only loan out money on time that you deposit, and you cannot withdraw it during that period of time, so it is like a CD (certificate of deposit).

2. Abolish the fed or put it under the treasury department.

3. The Treasury department could then issue Treasury notes, not Treasury bonds. Treasury notes are credit money that is spent on public goods, or loaned for projects creating public goods. It is returned to the government through taxes or repayment of low-interest loans. The colonists used colonial scrip, Lincoln issued GREENBACKS, and Kennedy issued Treasury notes. These were all credit money, not debt money.

4. States or local governments could issue warrants, bills of credit, or zero interest bonds. Some people feel the national government is too unaccountable to be trusted with money creation and it should be devolved to lower levels of government.

5. Social Credit (CH Douglas): Part of public credit money could be to resurrect the idea of social credit. Government issues credit directly to the public as a guaranteed minimum income and they spend it on things they need. The fed gave money free to banks. Why not give money free to us? This is similar to the scene in the recent movie "In Time", when they rob the bank and announce to the crowd that the bank is giving zero interest loans, and you don't have to pay it back.

6. Dennis Kucinich has introduced the NEED act which incorporates many of these ideas from the American Monetary Institute.

Debt-based money is incompatible with the post oil-peak world. It's only a matter of time before it collapses in default.

29 comments
:

"Therefore, the economy must always grow in order to pay back the interest. When the economy can't grow anymore...collapse."

As much as I am sympathetic to this kind of reasoning, I don't think it is correct. As you point out that Hubert points out - money is merely notation that can grow without bounds. Certainly the economy in real terms will soon stop growing - but there is no good reason to think that in nominal terms that is going to happen. "Hyperinflation" you may shout, but no need for it to be "hyper". A modest amount of inflation is very good for motivation - something that keeps us all working - which is one of the main jobs of an economy. The "end of growth" merely becomes the end of "real" growth. There will be no getting off of the tread mill - and this need not be a major adjustment. Just let the Fed do it's job, and don't be frightened by inflation!

Dr. Hubbert revised his estimate for the timing of the peak of world oil production a couple of times before he passed away, but it is worth noting that in his original 1956 paper where he predicted the US peak to occur sometime between 1965-71, he also stated the following about the whole world:

"On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within about half a century..." (Hubbert, p.27)

That's pretty amazing that he appears to have nailed the peak of conventional crude production (currently set in 2005-2006) from a half century out.

Gary said, "Certainly the economy in real terms will soon stop growing - but there is no good reason to think that in nominal terms that is going to happen."

Sort of reminds me of the Black Knight of Monty Python fame. After he's had both legs and arms chopped off -- and hemorrhaging gallons of blood -- he still insists, "It is but a flesh wound." When he just as clearly has lost the game.

It's a great article until the solution part. It leaves out a whole lot of other things that would continue to grow exponentially. One major one is population. Try overlaying population growth with the other two charts. Population would need to decline. The other pretty darn major parts left out are the ways we consume and waste. We're going to continue to consume and waste exponentially if that doesn't change and our population keeps going up. The separation of wealth would also continue to grow exponentially. It's not just interest that funnels money to the upper 10%. It's the whole darn economy. Look at pretty much any corporations organizational chart. It looks like the family tree chart that's growing exponentially. This one, however, is parasitic, taking from the workers and giving to the CEO's. Companies keep acquiring other companies, until we only have a handful of media companies, water utility companies, energy companies, public education curriculum companies, etc. It's not just interest and the Fed's money creation that creates a need for exponential growth. At root is our hierarchical organizing structures. The banking systems were created out of this belief that some people are inferior to others. We would need to also get rid of hierarchical organizing to avoid exponential growth. Egalitarianism is the only way to prevent this. Certainly if you take a handful of these solutions, you'll slow things down, but you won't be solving the issue, or stopping exponential growth.

One question I would have would be, if we are going to so radically change our economic system, why stick with money? We could much more directly take care of each other's needs without money. I think the new bottom line should be "well-being for all".

The real question is how to distribute goods and services equitably when the pie is shrinking. The path we are presently on - debt deflation - is chaotic and disruptive in its outcome. It leaves the poor and middle class with nothing, and gives a big haircut to the rich, but basically leaves us still a nation of serfs and plutocrats - just at a lower level. Modest inflation (true inflation implies wage increases as well as price increases) gradually erases debt and distributes wealth outward. To think that we can all be better off in a world of shrinking resources is folly - but so to is choosing the wrong way to redistribute what is left.

Gary, it is so refreshing to hear someone with some common sense on this. The article is essentially forwarding a very basic liberal model known as helicopter drops, which conservatives hate, because it a) increases inflation, and b) is welfare, in that it gives people an incentive to not work. Both of those are, of course, just conservative BS designed to protect rich people from losing money to inflation and welfare (through taxes, they assume, but in this case it's just printing money).

Further, it's not like we're saying we should drop so much money that people won't work. We're just talking about a mechanism to supplement the incomes that have been separated from productivity for 30 years (since Reagan started busting unions).

The other thing that needs to happen is a lower dollar. The dollar has been kept artificially high at first because many countries had to run big export surpluses to get out of debt. But now the Government protects a high dollar because rich people don't want to pay more for their imported cars or European vacations. A lower dollar would greatly increase exports, creating jobs in the US, and lowering the trade deficit, and, therefore, the debt.

So, for a little more inflation, the FED should go to NGDP targeting, and say "We're going to do everything we can to make sure GDP goes to 5% (or whatever) and stays there until unemployment drops." It's like my favorite protest sign said: "Fuck opportunistic disinflation! It's a dual mandate!"

Of course, unless we really start investing in renewable power and a decentralized food and power supply system (resilient communities), it's all for naught.

I see the biggest problem as the one that both John Robb and Matt Yglesias have been talking about lately: lack of ethics from the plutocrats. The old Calvinist idea of hard work leading to money is shot to hell by these Robber Barons who run companies into the ground while getting huge bonuses, create wealth out of moving paper around or protecting copyrights, all the while screwing the rest of us and getting tax cuts from the like of GW Bush and Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney.

When these people steal billions from the working people in this country, and don't go to jail for it, or are applauded for it and called "job creators" by The Speaker of the House, then we are definitely headed for a collapse in Great Depression style.

There are plenty of examples in the world today of what life looks like with much, MUCH less money, energy, and other resources to go around, even as population continues to grow.

Look no further that the vast slums of the so-called "third world" for a good idea of what the future holds for a majority of the population in the currently wealthy industrialized countries.

What cannot be predicted is how those populations will adapt to their new world of greatly diminished expectations.

One possibility is mass protest and social unrest. Possibly followed by political and/or social collapse, much like the recent "Arab Spring", or it could just as easily result in tanks on the street and mass deaths at the hands of the military as we see in Syria.

Another possibility is people adjusting as best they can to the "New Normal". In W.W.II millions of Jews quietly endured one deprivation after another, each one more brutal and humiliating than the last, all the way up to the point they were ordered onto the cattle cars and into the, um, "showers". I understand the sentiment "it could be worse" was a commonly heard refrain, I guess people can rationalize just about anything.

Either way, as our massive energy subsidies disappear so too will the wealth and privilege currently enjoyed by millions in the industrialized world be destroyed, and nothing on earth will serve to bring it back.

As we enter a world of slums ruled by corrupt police, vicious drug gangs and well armed warlords, how does one prepare to be impoverished?

Gary wrote:"The real question is how to distribute goods and services equitably when the pie is shrinking. The path we are presently on - debt deflation - is chaotic and disruptive in its outcome. It leaves the poor and middle class with nothing, and gives a big haircut to the rich, but basically leaves us still a nation of serfs and plutocrats - just at a lower level. Modest inflation (true inflation implies wage increases as well as price increases) gradually erases debt and distributes wealth outward. To think that we can all be better off in a world of shrinking resources is folly - but so to is choosing the wrong way to redistribute what is left."

On a practical level, this has got nothing to do with anything. Please stop.

A few points: All money is not debt, and all money is not borrowed into existence. There is a difference between credit money and base money (physical dollars). These are described as M0, M1, M2, etc. Also, the treasury already issues treasury bills; I don't understand how your t-bills differ from the current ones.

Some of your solutions were in fact done in the past (states, banks issuing their own currency, etc.) The problem was not solved, there were still panics and crashes. People actually DEMANDED the creation of central banks in America, twice (see Second Bank of the US).

People demand easy money that they can borrow; they don't want a hard fixed currency because it makes debt too hard to pay back. See Williams Jennings Bryans Cross of Gold speech.

The real solution is to separate the store of value function from the means of exchange. This has been done in the Euro, which floats the price of gold on its balance sheet, allowing the EU to debase the currency without destroying it. Contrary to what you hear in the media, the euro is not going to fail. The dollar is going to fail.

Separating the functions makes everyone happy. Savers can save in something that can't be inflated away, and borrowers have access to easy money.

Gary #2,The fed doing its job, that's what I'm afraid of: keeps creating debt money. Inflation is what we have now: Q) What's a 2011 dollar worth in 1970?A) 17 centsThere is no logical reason for this other than our money system. Keeping the treadmill going is nothing to shoot for.

av, odin469: right and LOL-right

Abe Karl-Gruswitz: Hey give me a break! I was only talking about money and oil. I agree with everything you added here.

Scott Supaks-The only aspect similar to helicopter drops is social credit. Big difference though: zero interest credit, NOT a loan from the fed that requires interest. Hard to wrap our head around, since we haven't done it since Lincoln and the colonists. Exports are a small portion of the economy, so not sure how big an impact that would have. GDP targeting is a straw man since GDP is irrelevant to well-being in developed countries. Good points about loss of income since Reagan and plutocratic greed.

Jerry McManus: I don't share your pessimism in the long run because the US has massive waste. 2X energy use/GDP than Europe. 3X energy use/GDP compared to Denmark. "a world of slums ruled by corrupt police, vicious drug gangs and well armed warlords". Isn't that what we have now? The question is how will we redistribute....

The counterparty to any issued credit has the debit. As there can be created an infinitude of debit, so can there be created an infinitude of credit. All of these are in the realm of the tertiary economy (symbols).

The secondary econonmy (usable items) and the primary economy (natural resources) cannot be increased by fiat. Any set of symbols that cannot be created by fiat must be predicated upon something in the primary and/or secondary ecnomies: standing timber, arable land, head of cattle, grams of gold, etc.

You've been brainwashed by the elite to think that a stronger dollar is bad and that we need more inflation. If that truley was the path to the solutions to our problems, why wouldn't every nation on earth start printing money right now? There, instant wealth, just print it.

You can't control inflation like a mechanical lever. Once the genie is out of the bag, it will destroy the currency. Do you think these elites are about restraint and discipline? This only ends with hyperinflation and the elites printing a quadrillion dollar bills to "solve" the problem.

Let the banks fail. Let the capital be reallocated. Let the system crash and then we build again.

Jeff,You are right, but base money is only 2%, debt money is 98%. I should have said Treasury notes like Greenbacks, not T-bills.

I didn't advocate a hard fixed currency.

The revolution was fought partly over the ban on colonial scrip by the British. You are right credit money has been done in the past. Sometimes well, sometimes not. Can we do worse than the fed?

The 2nd Bank of the US was shut down by Jackson because as he stated it was, "a hydra-headed monster eating the flesh of the common man...Kept the money when they speculated in foodstuffs and won, charged it to the bank when they lost (sound familiar)...A den of vipers and thieves."

Separating the store of value from the exchange is a good idea. But you still have to get rid of debt money.

KFO, right on.

Robin Datta,That is precisely Hubbert's point. The money supply must match the supply of real resources.

chingachgook,I've read Kuzminski and I know him. The Kellog plan is a good one, and I prefer the decentralist approach. I don't agree with the centralized top-down approach of AMI or Ellen Brown. I merely noted them as options.

Actually, all these ideas were not original to Hubbert, they were first articulated by Frederick Soddy. Hubbert discovered them through the Technocracy Movement. I highly recommend Soddy's book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, although it's hard to find and is not yet in the public domain. from Wikipedia:

"In four books written from 1921 to 1934, Soddy carried on a "quixotic campaign for a radical restructuring of global monetary relationships", offering a perspective on economics rooted in physics—the laws of thermodynamics, in particular—and was "roundly dismissed as a crank". While most of his proposals - "to abandon the gold standard, let international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price index) in order to facilitate this effort" - are now conventional practice, his critique of fractional-reserve banking still "remains outside the bounds of conventional wisdom". Soddy wrote that financial debts grew exponentially at compound interest but the real economy was based on exhaustible stocks of fossil fuels. Energy obtained from the fossil fuels could not be used again. This criticism of economic growth is echoed by his intellectual heirs in the now emergent field of ecological economics."

My burning question after this article is: what do I, as a young, smart, educated 99%'er? I'm not particularly patriotic.

Should I become a farmer/homesteader? Should I move to another country?

When you put it vaguely enough like that, I will say yes, exactly! Keep asking yourself good questions, think things through and don't be afraid to say yes to yourself. You said you're smart :) The rest is learning. Most people will have to grow food as their primary, secondary or tertiary profession. I have two goats.

Am I crazy? There's not enough oil, that's the problem. Discussing financial theses is realy like the guy falling of a rooftop - "I feel still good, just have to think positive..." And as in every crisis: Who's fault is it? Our it is! No fingerpointing will change that.

Great article, thanks for all the graphs. I have a slightly different take though with the argument that because we have an exponentially growing monetary base due to interest, that the real economy must also grow to keep up with that. All that has to happen is for real interest rates to be kept negative for the majority of the time, which is actually what has happened over most of the last 50 years.

As Gary says, that's how his mortgage got paid off. Negative real interest rates transfer wealth from savers to debtors (and we CRITICIZE the average person today for squandering their savings and going into debt?? They have no choice as "Rational Consumers" unless they buy PM's).

I think there are two larger overarching reasons why our economies are forced to grow (exponential interest is merely the tool of delivery for these), and one of these unfortunately gets very little discussion in the financial blogosphere -- that being technological automation. It now takes many fewer worker hours to build a car, or do the administrative duties required to build a new bridge, than it used to, largely because of computers and automated production lines (information technology which is cheap). But the amounts of natural resources needed to make such things is still roughly the same as before, due to the limits imposed by the laws of thermodynamics.

Therefore, if the economy stays the same size over a certain time period encompassing these automation efficiency improvements, in terms of the total amounts of stuff or services that it "produces", then unemployment must go up. Conversely, to maintain full employment then the economy must grow, to provide job opportunities for people who got thrown out of work by their robot competitors. Think about the transition to UPC codes at the supermarket till. And now, they are even getting rid o cashiers with self-checkout. Everyone was screaming about all the checkout cashier jobs to be lost. Well they did get lost.

Those displaced workers tend to get diverted into construction and mining activities, which by definition are not sustainable and require a continually growing economy to provide a market to sell the products into. This then requires even greater growth. It's a neverending doomed spiral.

This is ultimately one of the major reasons behind all the phony credit bubbles of the last few decades, the housing bubble being the ultimate example. Ask yourself where those construction workers would be if they weren't building houses, while the economy is no longer growing due to Peak Oil? Where are they going to get jobs? Now, with no more asset bubbles left to inflate, they are inevitably on welfare and food stamps. It's not their fault, and I can't describe the frustration and contempt I feel towards casual observers who say that the Occupiers should just get off their butts and "get a job". Talk about turning on your own neighbours and countrymen.

The only solution is to reduce the work week (it hasn't been reduced in 50 years. This is equivalent to saying that we have made zero productivity improvements due to computers in 50 years, which is ridiculous). Along with this we of course also need to reform the monetary system to prevent the wealth concentration to the upper echelons of high finance. This is the other reason why our economies must grow, because the wealth of the middle class is being continually stolen by the oligarchs at the peak of the monetary system, and interest (or rather, its usurious manipulation by the banks) is the weapon of oppression. In order to prevent the middle class from becoming poor, the economy must grow to offset this theft from the middle class. Resources move from the natural world through the middle class to the bond parasites at the top. But now due to Peak Resources, the economy can no longer grow, and yet middle class wealth continues to be stolen at unprecedented rates. This is throwing the middle class into poverty.

A simple thought on the matter. How can we make assumptions of 8% (pensions and stocks) when the historic GDP is well below 8%. Seems to me, that simple assumption dictates that there has to be winners and losers. The question of who wins and who loses must lie with the individual and his abilities or lack of.

The Hulbert theory could very well work as described. It will always pay to use the old motto of, being prepared

I wonder why so many like to blame the rep for every thing. Print money for everyone. Why not take care of our own until we get back on our feet. Stop sending billions to others that hate us. Stupak, crooks, steeling money. Look at Obama, green energy rat holes just going to contributors. Jobs, gas line in or out of Canada, ya he wants jobs. The back door deals are appaulling. Wake up America, soon you will and your country will be gone. Then the ones who stated they would take care of you. Ya right. All you socialist, why do you come to a stock and investment page. You hate money, why spend time trying to earn it. God help us all. There is disaster ahead. Then who will you call, the gun carring bible holding good old boys. Thats who.

Base money is less than credit money, but it is growing, and base money is qualitatively different from credit money. Base money is much more hyperinflationary, and since the credit crisis hit the Fed has been replacing credit with base (buying debt, expanding balance sheet, swap lines, etc).

You definitely don't have to get rid of credit money; as I say people always want to borrow. Just separate the medium of exchange and the store of value, which has been done for more than a decade in Europe.

If you are interested in more in depth discussion of this, there is another blog where we can in fact see the future. Here's a hint: "Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going!" -Another

Frederick Soddy's _The Role of Money_ 1934, was freely available on line before - I downloaded it (but haven't finished it yet.) Now I can't seem to find where I got it from. http://www.archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbpThat link failed to work for me just now.